First of all, thanks for a response that seems a little more discursive and less dogmatic. I might actually have a question or two now that we're talking.
<I'm just trying to help people who been duped by this.>
This is the part we can agree on. A good place to start. I'm just as concerned as you about the intentions of industry propaganda, whether is supports my position or not. No rejection of this data was implied.
<I'm not trying to be hostile. Low blows like trying to compare me to Nico make your argument look very desperate. That also goes for the blanket unthinking statements about anything contrary to the "man-made global warming" theory being "from the oil industry".>
You need to work on your turnabout. Your behavior seemed Nicoish to me. Just trying to get your attention really. You know perfectly well that I referenced him for affect. No one could really be compared to Nico anyway. He's an entity unto himself. But it did seem like you were spamming us about this without concern for our position or response. Now, if you really stand behind this, and really want us to look seriously at your data, we are not trying to simply ignore you because we disagree. We really are trying to get it right, and your concern is basically on topic, if not very credible to us at this point.
And I didn't directly imply that all of your data was from industry sources. I said that in looking into this myself, that I had found most people advancing this theory to have obvious bias. Your position can be utilized by 'the man' just as ours can.
<I don’t like the oil industry either, but if there is anything originating form them in regards to this I would submit that it's more likely to be in aid of creating false credence for the "man-made global warming" theory.>
Once again, we acknowledge this possibility.
<I'm sorry if I haven’t presented this well enough for you, but you've also got a belief system that you’re trying to protect so there's an inherent bias on your part also.>
We do have a belief system, and we are trying to promote it. But we are very specifically not trying to protect it. We are as interested as any scientist in finding data that refutes our position. That's the essence of the scientific method, in fact. Seeking out everything that disproves your hypothesis.
<Lets kick the facts, from what I've read CO2 does not drive climate change period, it follows it. So when the earth heats up things like the sea release massive amounts of CO2, so the relationship is one of reaction. Al Gore's film makes out that when there's more CO2 the earth gets warmer, with CO2 being the driver. This is totally incorrect but as far as I can tell you guys believe that? If I'm wrong please correct me.>
If that last paragraph had been your first post about all of this, the conversation would have gone very differently. Here's my personal opinion on the matter.
I think that we have little ability to predict what is about to happen to our environment. We see a number of factors operating as a system, but it is far too complex for a world full of our fastest computers to comprehend. Trying to say that the course of our environment will be determined by any one factor is overly simple. We don't, for instance, understand the CO2/temp relationship as well as some would imply.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that Al Gore's movie had some spin, or that some of the science upon which it is based would come to be supplanted by new data and conclusions. I am well aware of the manner in which the environmental movement has been infiltrated as much as any progressive movement to the extent that there are many people and organizations that intend to distract the public from the most pressing issues.
But others are genuinely invested in getting their fact straight, as much as you for instance, and they are all telling us that we face a global humanitarian disaster, regardless of the exact cause. I'm more concerned about the likelihood of that disaster, than trying to do the impossible, and figure out exactly what form the disaster will take.
Finally, just because data has been used to manipulate people doesn't mean that the data is flawed. We've looked at a lot of data, and drawn our own conclusion shared by many, that we face an emergency. You're not arguing that we have no impact on the environment, are you? That would be to suggest that concerns about water and air quality, and species diversity are pointless. As though we hadn't poisoned the rivers. But we have. We are poisoning the world. And in fact, if we kill off enough plankton, the atmosphere, and the food chain going all the way up to us, could drastically change in a very short time.
So I guess I am still left wondering exactly what it is that you are arguing. What do you want us to do? What specific information or strategy do you think we need to modify? And once again, if its remove the environment section, you might as well not waste your time.